+menu-


  • Category Archives Public Forums Are Misleading
  • Drought? Piped Irrigation,Tailwater, BMP

    Drought? Piped Irrigation, Tailwater FC , BMP

    In response to three (3) questions on BMP for Dungeness drought irrigation water.

    Asked after the Sequim Community Drought Forum

    ——————————————————————–

    When we have irrigation water coming from the river into the irrigation pipes past our house and I don’t use it so it just keeps flowing down hill till someone does use it,

    but what happens if it doesn’t get used?

    Does it just dump out in the sound like the river does?

    Or is there an end to the pipe?

    —————————————————-

    Great drought questions. Complicated answer.

    —————————————————————-

    START HERE

    Dungeness River Targeted Watershed Initiative FINAL …  a 47 page report

    www.jamestowntribe.org/…/nrs/TWG_Final%20Report-compressed.pdf

    Dungeness Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………. …. NAME OF PROJECT. ….. An extensive irrigation system, which diverts river.

    snippets from the  47 page report

    A statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of best management practice BMPs from Task 2

    (i.e. IRRIGATION PIPING and septic system repairs) for remediating FECAL COLIFORM (FC) BACTERIA.

    ———————————————————————-

    Piping irrigation ditches is considered a best management practice (BMP) for water conservation by preventing conveyance losses.

    Since the water conveyance system is enclosed in a pipe, the possibility of contaminants (fecal coliform (FC)) entering the system is greatly reduced, and if the pipeline is closed at the end, there is no spilling of excess tailwater at the downstream end of the irrigation system

    Monitoring for the effectiveness of irrigation piping was problematic in the sense that downstream samples could not be collected in most cases since the source water was eliminated.

    (all used for irrigating?)

    At one downstream location, the tailwater from a bluff ditch station (IRR-3) that emptied into the Bay was monitored after piping was complete because regulations required that a stormwater conveyance ditch be reconstructed above the pipe to continue to convey runoff.

    After piping, the fecal coliform FC concentration in the stormwater runoff conveyance was not significantly different than before the piping.

    Further analysis examined the impact of piping on tailwater discharge into Dungeness Bay,

    comparing data before and after the piping at three marine monitoring sites located near the freshwater bluff ditch sites. While this was statistically significant,

    it has little meaning from a water quality improvement standpoint.

    A number of benefits of irrigation piping can clearly be demonstrated such as water conservation, reduced ditch maintenance and efficient water delivery,

    However, the empirical evidence of reduction in fecal coliform FC was not clearly apparent from this study.

    —————————————————————-

    Expanded snippets, the full 47 page report is online

    Dungeness River Targeted Watershed Initiative FINAL …

    www.jamestowntribe.org/…/nrs/TWG_Final%20Report-compressed.pdf

    Dungeness Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………. …. NAME OF PROJECT. ….. An extensive irrigation system, which diverts river.

    Effectiveness Monitoring of Fecal Coliform Bacteria and Nutrients in the Dungeness Watershed, Washington

    Battelle PNWD-4054-3

    Pacific Northwest Division

    Richland, Washington 99352

    Prepared for:

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in fulfillment of Task 3 (Effectiveness Monitoring Study) of the Dungeness River Watershed Final Work plan for the EPA Targeted Watershed Grant Program (2004)

    October 2009

     This study was conducted as part of an Environmental Protection Agency EPA Targeted Watershed Grant awarded to the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in 2004 that focused surface water cleanup efforts in the lower Dungeness Watershed and Dungeness Bay in Washington State

     http://www.jamestowntribe.org/programs/nrs/FINAL_EM_RPT%28Oct_09%29v_2.pdf

    Piping irrigation ditches is considered a best management practice (BMP) for water conservation by preventing conveyance losses.

    Since the water conveyance system is enclosed in a pipe, the possibility of contaminants entering the system is greatly reduced, and if the pipeline is closed at the end, there is no spilling of excess tailwater at the downstream end of the irrigation system

    Monitoring for the effectiveness of irrigation piping was problematic in the sense that downstream samples could not be collected in most cases since the source water was eliminated. Median concentrations from the two upstream stations were 10 and 128 CFU/100 ml.

    At one downstream location, the tailwater from a bluff ditch station (IRR-3) that emptied into the Bay was monitored after piping was complete because regulations required that a stormwater conveyance ditch be reconstructed above the pipe to continue to convey runoff.

    After piping, the fecal coliform FC concentration in the stormwater runoff conveyance was not significantly different than before the piping.

    Further analysis examined the impact of piping on tailwater discharge into Dungeness Bay,

    comparing data before and after the piping at three marine monitoring sites located near the freshwater bluff ditch sites.

    One marine station, DOH-110 was significantly different before and after piping. However, the geometric mean at this site before piping

    was 7 CFU/100 ml and after the piping was 4 CFU/100 ml. While this was statistically significant, it has little meaning from a water quality improvement standpoint.

    A number of benefits of irrigation piping can clearly be demonstrated such as water conservation, reduced ditch maintenance and efficient water delivery, however the empirical evidence of reduction in fecal coliform FC was not clearly apparent from this study.

    In the case where an irrigation ditch was piped to eliminate tailwater, but the piped ditch closely coupled the path of a stormwater runoff conveyance into the Bay, the benefits were reduced.

    However, the potential source of contamination to this ditch is from a much smaller geographic area than prior to piping when several miles of open irrigation ditch led to this discharge location

    A statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of BMPs from Task 2(i.e. irrigation piping and septic system repairs)for remediating fecal coliform bacteria. The my core mediation best management practice BMP effectiveness is discussed in a separate report (Thomas et al. 2009)

    The overall results of this study have not shown an improvement in surface water quality with respect to fecal coliform bacteria in the Dungeness watershed or Dungeness Bay within the last 10 years. However, water quality conditions have not declined within the watershed either.

    This is notable when considering the population within the  Dungeness watershed has steadily increased during this time period.

    ————————————————————————-

    In fact, asking your three short questions was the prelude to the following.

    Finding the answer was a bit more complicated. It took several hours of research going from one website to another.

    However, it was time well spent, in connecting the dots, many vital failures of public notification shall now become open, transparent and someone must be held accountable.

    In one of the following documents the FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS, failure of legal requirements for public notification of public meetings was mentioned and what remedial actions must be taken to comply with the WA State Public Meeting Act.

    This documented information of PUBLIC MEETINGS without legal, public notification, participation and public comment  SPANS A VERY LONG PERIOD IN TIME.

     ————————————————————————————-

    The more “We the People” know and can document, the better. Another chapter in the book of revelations by Pearl Revere

    ———————————————————————–

    I found this.. I did not research it,  It was mentioned briefly at the Drought Forum, But who knew why?

    2015 Emergency Drought affect on More Creek Water users?

    Technical Memorandum – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/environment/…/SSA_Memo_Final.pdf

    Clallam County

    “Morse Creek is the largest of the independent drainages to salt water between the Dun- …. of 3,800′. It is the westernmost stream influenced directly by Dungeness area irrigation ….. Since 2000 the piping of many reaches of irrigation ditch has re- ….. Thus, the occurrence of baseflow in this reach expands and contracts up-.

    —————————————————————————-

     2015 Dungeness Watershed (7) irrigation systems

    More images for irrigation systems in the dungeness watershed

    one diagram shows two pipeline that end dumping into the bay

    ————————————————————

    Minutes – January 13, 2015 – Clallam CD

    www.clallamcd.org/storage/dist-business/…/Minutes2015-0113.pdf

    Jan 13, 2015 – Ben Smith informed the Board that the Water Users Association (WUA), … The WUA has not drafted a proposal yet, but wanted to see first if the …

    ——————————————————————–

    Minutes – January 13, 2015 – Clallam CD

    www.clallamcd.org/storage/dist-business/…/Minutes2015-0113.pdf

    Jan 13, 2015 – Interlocal Agreement with Clallam County for Pollution Identification & Correction (PIC) Planning…PIC Implementation I … finalizing the contract after removing Addendum A (relating to co-location of offices). … DUNGENESS IRRIGATION DISTRICT DITCH PIPING PROIECT’ in the amount of$l,0| 1.19. … Ben Smith informed the Board that the Water Users Association (WUA), …

    ———————————————————————————–

    Dungeness River Targeted Watershed Initiative FINAL …

    www.jamestowntribe.org/…/nrs/TWG_Final%20Report-compressed.pdf

    Dungeness Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………. …. NAME OF PROJECT. ….. AN EXTENSIVE IRRIGATION SYSTEM, WHICH DIVERTS RIVER.

    ————————————————————————–

    November 12, 2014 APPROVED Meeting Notes Dungeness …

    home.olympus.net/~dungenesswc/docs/…/2014-11%20notes.pdf

    Nov 12, 2014 – Jennifer Bond, Clallam Conservation District … I. Introductions/Review Agenda/Review & Approve October DRMT Draft … District, provided an update presentation on the PIC (Pollution. Identification and Correction) Plan project status. …. Will look at opportunities for revising program in ways that would …

    —————————————————————————-

    October 23, 2014 – Clallam CD

    www.clallamcd.org/storage/…/agenda…/20141023_PIC_Agenda__Notes…

    Oct 23, 2014 – AGENDA. Pollution Identification & Correction Planning Meeting … Bond (CCD), Matt Heins (CCD), Stephanie Zurenko (DOE), Ivan … Jennifer and Andy gave a presentation on the draft PIC plan to the … Hansi also briefed the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s Natural Resources Committee on the status of the.

    ——————————————————————-

    My first Google search diagramhttps://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=2015+dungeness+watershed+%287%29+irrigation+systems+diagram

    —————————————————————————-

    Documented questions on irrigation water

    —– Original Message —–

    From: “diane <

    To: “pearl hewett” <phew@wavecable.com>

    Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 3:56 PM

    Subject: Re: Citizen Review on Our Drought Forum

    Pearl please forgive the silliness of my question.

    When we have irrigation water coming from the river into the irrigation pipes past our house and I don’t use it so it just keeps flowing down hill till someone does use it, but what happens if it doesn’t get used? Does it just dump out in the sound like the river does? Or is there an end to the pipe? OK that is my question for today.

    ——————————————————————–

    Diane,

    Please forgive me for MY DOCUMENTED, convoluted extremely complex and difficult to follow intricately folded, twisted, coiled, complicated, sometimes, depends, on usually, or not, response to your (3) DROUGHT irrigation water questions.

    Pearl

     


  • Citizen Review on Our Drought Forum

    Citizen Review on Our Drought Forum

    This is the full unedited comment.

    Sequim/Dungeness community listens to drought concerns

    by Lois Krafsky-Perry
    for Citizen Review
    Posted Saturday, May 23, 2015

    Sequim, WA – The Water Drought Forum was held in the Guy Cole Center at Carrie Blake Park Thursday, May 21, 2015 to a crowd of approximately 250 people, there to ask questions about their concerns. Instead, according to several people who attended, they were treated to a “dog-and-pony show” for the first two hours of the evening.

    Scott Chitwood, Dungeness River Management (DRMT) Chairman, opened the meeting and announced, Here’s “what we may expect…may happen this summer.” Chitwood was former Natural Resource Director for Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe. He complimented Shawn Hines, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe representative, for her work on water interests.

    To see photos of the slideshow presentations, click here.

    About half-way through, almost half the crowd had left in disgust and/or boredom, when one slideshow presentation after another was made by various activists and federal agency representatives – many of which repeated the same information, showed the same graphs and charts, and some included photos from eastern Washington. Several speakers reminded the audience that they could go to Google search for the information. A break was not offered, during the two and a half hour meeting.

    The general theme was that we are facing a drought in the Sequim-Dungeness Valley due to an off year of snow. Washington’s “Drought Trigger” was defined as “less than 75% of normal water supply, plus “hardship” = “Drought.” Despite the fact that rainfall has equaled or exceeded previous years, and the aquifer itself has water, the “experts” were telling the crowd that the snowmelt, based on models, was 75% of “normal” and “may” cause a “drought”. (Interestingly, the definition of “drought” in the Miriam-Webster dictionary reads: “a period of dryness especially when prolonged; specifically : one that causes extensive damage to crops or prevents their successful growth.”)

    Mike Gallagher, Department of Ecology (DOE), facilitated the meeting. He showed slides and explained, “what the plans are for water shortage.” He then asked for questions from the audience. Before any answers were given to the questions asked, however, the agency representatives, for the next approximate 1-1/2 hours, presented various slideshows, with explanations about snowfall – much of the information overlapping.

    Several of the unanswered questions included Pearl Rains Hewett, Port Angeles resident, who asked, “what about drought for the Elwha River in Port Angeles?” She declared that 25,000 people are affected from the Elwha River to Morse Creek. “That drought system should be part of this forum” she stated Several people asked about wells, water distribution, and storage. “With no water storage, what will we do?” asked one woman.

    Nobody was asked to give their name or address, while asking questions, so there apparently will not be a record of comments.

    Mary Bell, a longtime Sequim farmer, asked about water availability and irrigation, for animals.

    A woman asked, if they are addressing snow pack at 6500 feet.

    “We have to look ‘ahead of time’ – what will it look like?” said Drought Coordinator Jeff Marti representing the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). He told the attendees that from 500 – one million salmon are “expected” to arrive this year, and there are no storage reservoirs. “What will happen?” he said.

    Marti said “drought” was defined by Department of Ecology (DOE) as when a snowpack is less than 75% of normal of water supply plus hardship. He admitted that the precipitation (rainfall) was mostly normal. He said that “experts” from WSAC (Ecology’s Water Supply Availability Committee) including “climate experts” like NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and others decide whether an area is above or below the 75%. EWEC (Ecology’s Executive Water Emergency Committee (Policy), the Dept. of Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife, Conservation Commission and others at the State determine the “policy” that a “hardship” exists. The recommendation goes to the governor, who then declares a drought.

    The Washington Water Trust (WWT) is buying up water rights on a “temporary” basis for “low value” crops like hay and alfalfa. They are expecting funding from the Legislature to buy up more fairly soon.

    Marti said that even from March, there will be “pretty extreme conditions.” The Olympic Peninsula, along with Walla Walla, Wenatchee and others are expecting a “hardship”, especially since there is no water storage available. The result of “hardship” caused a shutdown of irrigation in Yakima as of May.

    Marti discussed WRIA (Water Resource Inventory Area), “as insiders call it,” he said. He mentioned 3 to 5 percent, in the Olympics, as a ‘dreadful state’.
    Olympic Peninsula fisheries and impacts on small communities, without any storage, is a concern. He stated that 48-62 percent of watersheds in the state are affected. That is 85 percent of the state, determined Marti.

    He said there is an interactive map online and said that the WRIA (map) shows the Dungeness basin. He stated that snow melt was at 4000 feet.

    Others who promoted the same basic message included Scott Pattee, Water Supply “specialist” from the USDA [U.S. Dept. of Agriculture] and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). “This is an anomalous year,” he said. It is “potentially” one of the worst forecast years ever, he added. He said “deep wells” will not be affected. He said he gets to go into the mountains to see the snowpack, riding on snowmobiles and in helicopters – a “tough” job, he laughed.

    WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Teresa Scott is the “drought coordinator”, who said she works closely with Ecology. She explained all the aspects about how a low river flow might hurt the fish. They are looking at water access for fish and “enforcement”, and “all the rest of it.” The fish hatcheries will have to go “find and net” the fish when they don’t come back to the fisheries, she said. They will be using aerators and oxygen pumps to help the fish. “We go into streams and move rocks, so the fish can get through,” she said. They built flumes in eastern Washington to help with fish passage. “We’ll see wetland dry up in summer,” she said.

    Chitwood asked “What are we going to do to get fish to their spawning grounds? We’re going to monitor them.” He talked about sand bags in key positions to deepen the channels.

    Bryan Suslick, Dept of Natural Resources, reiterated that the rainfall has been near normal, but not the snowpack. “It ‘looks like’ it ‘might be’ an early start to the fall rain season,” he said. All predictions are done through computer modeling. He advocated for the fire-wise program, which Andy Haner of NOAA National Weather Service from Seattle reviewed.

    After approximately 1-1/2 hours of slideshows and presentations (from 6:15 -8 p.m.), a panel set up to make statements and answer questions from the remaining approximate 90 people in the audience.

    Local farmer Ben Smith, Maple View Farms and president of the Dungeness Water Users Association, said when the river gets to 120cfs, an “action plan” will go into effect, and the community will be asked to reduce or eliminate watering their yards. “As irrigators, we are being as efficient as we can,” he said. Surges have been done in the past, but not sure of the effectiveness. “We are committed to exploring all options,” he said.

    Amanda Cronin, Project Manager with WWT [Washington Water Trust] is working with irrigators. The WWT is holding a “reverse auction” with taxpayers’ (Ecology grant) money, with the seven irrigation districts and companies in a volunteer program to pay irrigators not to irrigate. Preliminarily, there have been 28 bids from 15 landowners to be paid for not irrigating; so far, 21 of the bids have been accepted from 13 of the landowners, she said. That’s 800 acres that won’t be irrigated, according to Cronin.
    She explained regulations for senior rights/water rights. Temporary transfer of water rights, public education, funding assistance for public entities, and grant programs ‘would be in place’.

    There are Senior and Junior users. “Senior users have priority. In a drought, we have a duty to protect Senior users,” affirmed Cronin. She continued, “We can give an order to shut off which has impacts to Junior users.” She spoke of many fish problems relating to water availability for fish. “We have to step up enforcement, when we have people trying to catch them,” she announced. Many people left the building during and after her presentation.

    Chitwood said they are going to monitor what the challenge looks like. He talked about minimum flow in the river. “We are going to do whatever we can do to get from point A to point B,” he said. He prefers sand bags, rather than hauling fish to safely. He talked about sand bags in key positions to deepen the channels. “We can use volunteers, give me a call,” he said.

    A panel representing several entities, joined Ben Smith who represents the irrigators. Smith is president of the Dungeness Water Users Association and is also a dairy farmer, at Maple View Farms, in Sequim.

    Amanda Cronin WWT and David Garlington a City of Sequim representative joined three more panel members, at the table. It was stated that the City of Sequim, Irrigators, Tribes, DRMT and PUD (Public Utility District) were working together to address water supply.
    Cronin, from Seattle said she had worked on various water issues since 2008. She said there are volunteer irrigators who would not irrigate from August 15 to September 15th, with commercial crops five acres or more. There are 28 bids from 15 owners. She said 13 owners were accepted. It would include approximately 800 acres. “Whether that water will be available, we will see what happens,” she said.

    Garlington spoke about using less water such as lawn watering, and capturing storm water runoff in storage or infiltration. He also discussed putting a deeper well near the river. He said when later questioned that 2.5 percent of the water is used by the City of Sequim.

    An audience member asked Smith how it would be determined to shut off the irrigation ditches. Smith answered, “40 CFS. We agreed to take no more than 60 CFS left in the river.”

    When asked about flowers and lawns, Smith answered that very little is used for lawns. Eighty percent of the state is used for irrigation, according to what the Irrigation Ditch Company supplied. “We are committed to exploring all options….we will get things done. I am optimistic,” said Smith.

    A question was directed to Cronin about money from DOE. One of the panel members responded that “It is from taxpayers to the legislature.” He said he expected they would release it soon.

    Cronin said that they are looking for storage near River Road. The amount is $32,000,000 for only that reservoir, according to Cronin.

    A question was posed by former Clallam County resident, Ron Suslick. He said it was $56,000,000 seven years ago. He asked, “What did you do with it?” A facilitator answered, “Probably used it.”

    Cronin answered a question that Washington Water Trust is “pretty much a group.”
    Questioned about well safety, it was noted by one facilitator that wells below 20 feet could be a problem and that wells near a river were less likely to go dry.
    [Note: Panel members were gathered at the front and randomly answered questions and names were not mentioned, at that time.]

    When questions were asked about the status of ground water, the attendees were told, “we are at the high end of the normal now.” The City, Port Williams, and River Road are normal, in that they are from a deeper aquifer.

    When the bulldozers were mentioned for removing gravel to better accommodate fish, one community member reminded them there would be bulldozers for moving the dike. The answer from the front entourage was, “the dike is moved back to create more wetlands.”

    Diane Hood mentioned wells going dry. Holes in pipes were also questioned.
    Smith said “that option was discussed.”

    At the close of the meeting, a question was asked how much the water trust has spent on water storage. Cronin said the water trust sold certificates. The amount collected so far is approximately $100,000., she said, spent mitigating the Dungeness water rights acquisition projects. “All money goes back, “she announced. She said it was not going to storage. “Generally the Dungeness Restoration Project.” said Cronin.

    This is the full unedited report by Lois.

    ——————————————————————-

    The following is  additional documented information

    —————————————————————————————-

    Community Drought Forum

    May 21, 2015

    6:00-8:30PM

    Guy Cole Convention Center

    202 North Blake Avenue, Sequim, WA 98382

     

    OBJECTIVES:

    • To provide information about the current drought and how it is impacting water supplies (for humans and wildlife).
    • To describe drought response to date by various entities.
    • To answer questions and hear concerns people have about the drought.
    • To let people know what they can do to try to lessen the impacts of drought.

     

    TIME

    TOPIC

    SPEAKER

    6:00 – 6:25 1.   Welcome and Introductions

    • Drought Overview
    • Status and Response
    Michael Gallagher and Jeff MartiWA Department of Ecology
    6:25 – 6:45 2.   Water 101 and Water Supply Outlook(Snowpack, Precipitation, Streamflow) Scott PatteeNatural Resources Conservation Service
    6:45 – 7:05 3.    Fish and Wildlife Impacts/Needs During Drought Teresa ScottWA Department of Fish and WildlifeScott ChitwoodJamestown S’Klallam Tribe
    7:05 – 7:45 4.   Wildfire Preparation/Weather Forecasts Julie Knobel and Bryan Suslick WA Department of Natural ResourcesAndrew Haner National Weather Service
    7:45 – 8:25 5.   PANEL DISCUSSION           Local Actions Related to Water Supplies/Drought

    • Water Users Association
    • Washington Water Trust
    • City of Sequim
    • Clallam PUD
    • Washington Department of Health
    MODERATOR:  Mike Gallagher, WADOE Ben SmithAmanda CroninDavid Garlington

    Tom Martin

    Ginnie Stern

    8:25 – 8:30 6.   Closing Remarks Michael Gallagher and Jeff MartiWA Department of Ecology

     

     

     


  • Past and Present Drought in WA State

    History of Droughts in Washington State

    An interesting read on WA State DROUGHT PLANS

    BEFORE THE INSTREAM FLOW RULES.

    History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf  A 43 page document

    ———————————————————————————–

    PRESENT DROUGHT PLANS FOR CITIZENS IN WA STATE?

    AFTER THE INSTREAM FLOW RULES?

    May 24, 2015  The WA statewide drought emergency PLAN?.

    Hmmm…  LAWMAKERS have yet to act on DOE’s request for $9.6 million in drought relief funds. The request came in late March, weeks after legislators began putting together spending plans.

    UPDATE: WHAT’S THE HOLDUP ON THE $9.6 MILLION IN DROUGHT RELIEF FUNDS?

    What’s the problem?

    WATER FOR CITIZENS IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR…

    IT’S A VALUE JUDGMENT

    At a drought committee meeting Monday, Honeyford reminded Stanford that he had been willing to embrace Stanford’s drought preparation bill in exchange for the House approving legislation to let the city of Lynden draw water from the Nooksack River in Whatcom County.

    Tribes and environmental groups oppose the bill, which passed the Senate.

    ————————————————————————-

    THE “CITIZENS  REVIEW” OF ECOLOGY’S DROUGHT PLANS IN WA STATE?

    What YOU can expect at a COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM?

    This  Report by Lois Krafsky-Perry
    for Citizen Review
    Posted Saturday, May 23, 2015

    Sequim/Dungeness community listens to drought concerns

    IT’S A MUST READ

    http://citizenreviewonline.org/sequimdungeness-community-listens-to-drought-concerns/

    CITIZENS REVIEW  is an online  resource for disseminating critical information to keep citizens informed

    —————————————————————————————————

    AS PROVIDED ABOVE BY LOIS…

    We the people have partners too….

    My website, behindmyback.org,  is dedicated to investigating, researching, documenting, UPDATING and disseminating critical information to help keep American citizens informed by posting and reporting things they don’t know. This is just one chapter in the book of revelations by Pearl Revere.

    ————————————————————————————————

     A 43 page document History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf

    MEDIA Drought alert Sun., Feb. 6, 1977  

    WOW! THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    Dear Reader: On February 16, 1977, Governor Dixy Lee Ray established the “Governor’s … drought occurrences in the State of Washington since 1900. Various.

    OCR Text

    Northwest Officials ponder energy outlook By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Some nfflntnla HUn n*a« nn n_.. «-L. nn«<m.»». .i~-i_i_n.. M .-. THE DAILY NEWS—21 Angeles, Wash., Sun., Feb. 6, 1977

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Nervous government weather- watchers are mobilizing for battle should a Pacific Northwest drought short-circuit electric power and whither crops this spring. Homeowners may be asked — or forced — to reduce their electrical use. During Christmas, Seattle City Light asked its 370,000 customers not to use outdoor decorative lighting. Further sacrifices may be around the corner if a serious drought occurs.

    —————————————————————————-

    MEDIA COVERAGE?   2015 WA STATE DROUGHT?  

    NOT SO MUCH..

    CAPITAL PRESS  Published:  

    Their full media report is  here

    Washington’s late reaction to drought revives legislation …

    www.capitalpress.com/Washington/…/washingtons-late-react

    Capital Press May 14, 2015 – A House bill to revise how the state prepares for a drought sank in the Senate, but may resurface in the special session.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Ecology’s  current drought report is sort of an interesting reading.

    Last revised: May 22, 2015

    Washington Drought 2015 | Washington State Department …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/

    3 days ago – Washington State Weekly Drought Update – Office of Washington State … Current Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) % of Normal – View Map …

    ——————————————————–

    And more history…. a response from Ecology

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Marti, Jeff (ECY)

    To: pearl hewett

    Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 5:23 PM

    Subject: RE: History of Droughts in Washington State

    Pearl, good sleuthing.   1977 was indeed a bad drought year, which triggered the (still ongoing) Yakima water rights adjudication.

    Here’s a couple more reports that you might find interesting.

    Jeff

    ————————————

    Jeff Marti

    Water Resources Program

    360-407-6627

    jeff.marti@ecy.wa.gov

    2005 Drought Response Report to the Legislature

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0611001.html

    • 2005 Drought Response Report to the Legislature … While it is generally viewed as a climate anomaly, in fact drought is the dry part of the normal climate cycle.

    Drought Response 2001: Report to the Legislature

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0111017.html

    Author(s), Curt Hart. Description, This legislative report outlines how the state agencies responsible for managing Washington’s emergency drought activities .

    ——————————————————————————-

    History of Droughts in Washington State 1900 to 1977 etc…

    Title History of Droughts in Washington State
    Publication Type Report
    Year of Publication 1977
    Authors Staff, GAHEWEC
    Keywords climate, droughts, environment, historic, history, washington, water
    Title History of Droughts in Washington State
    Publication Type Report
    Year of Publication 1977
    Authors Staff, GAHEWEC
    Keywords climate, droughts, environment, historic, history, washington, water

     



  • Are You A Normal Person?

    Are You A Normal Person?

    The is a DIRECT QUOTE OF ECOLOGY’S ANSWER  to a basic question.

    Aren’t people more important than fish?

    IF YOU’RE A NORMAL PERSON, YOU’D ANSWER “YES, PEOPLE USUALLY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH.”

    HOWEVER, the issue of instream flow isn’t that simple.  It actually boils down to a “VALUE JUDGMENT” of what we want our world to look like.

    ————————————————————————

    VALUE JUDGMENT by definition

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted to assessments that reveal the values of the person making the assessment rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    ——————————————————————————–

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY  Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    ————————————————————————————————-

    ARE INSTREAM FLOWS ALL ABOUT PROTECTING FISH? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE?

    ——————————————————————————————————

    SO? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE?

    ARE YOU A NORMAL PERSON?

     By definition.. NORMAL is also used to describe individual behaviour that CONFORMS TO THE MOST COMMON BEHAVIOUR IN SOCIETY (known as conformity). Definitions of normality vary by person, time, place, and situation – it changes along with changing societal standards and norms.

    —————————————————————-

    ARE PEOPLE USUALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH?

    By definition.. USUALLY?

    1. Commonly encountered, experienced, or observed

    2. Regularly or customarily used

    3. In CONFORMITY with regular practice or procedure:

    ———————————————————————————

    ARE PEOPLE  MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH?

    USUALLY…….

    By definition.. HOWEVER

    1. In spite of that

    2. nevertheless

    3.  by whatever means

    4.  in whatever manner

    ——————————————————————

    It actually boils down to aVALUE JUDGMENT” (by definition)

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted TO ASSESSMENTS THAT REVEAL THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    ———————————————————————————

    THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT?

     WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY VALUES FISH BEFORE PEOPLE?

     —————————————————————————

    Hmmm… THE $$$ VALUES  OF EARTH ECONOMICS ?

    devoted to promoting ecosystem health and ecological economics

    ———————————————————————-

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY

    Introduction to Instream Flows and Instream Flow Rules
    Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    ———————————————————————————

    What was the question?

    Are instream flows all about protecting fish? What about people?

    What was ECOLOGY’S Answer?

    Isn’t instream flow really an issue of “water for fish” vs. “water for people”?  Aren’t people more important than fish?  If you’re a normal person, you’d answer “yes, people usually are more important than fish.”  However, the issue of instream flow isn’t that simple.  It actually boils down to a value judgment of what we want our world to look like.  Fish are in fact just one of many organisms that live in streams but they often offer a gauge of overall environmental health.

     Instream flow is an issue of water and river management – seeking ways to maintain healthy, diverse ecosystems that contribute to a high quality of life while sustaining our basic life functions and economies.  Accomplishing this goal is never easy, as it involves integration of scientific knowledge and societal demands within a set of legal limitations.

    But informed and effective instream flow management should afford a healthy, enjoyable existence for people while maintaining healthy, diverse aquatic resources.   It’s much more complicated than “keeping a little water in the creek for the fish.”

    Instream Flow Council

    ————————————————————————————–

    WA STATE ELECTED LEGISLATORS VALUE JUDGMENT?

     INSTREAM FLOW IS AN ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. THE TERM IS OFTEN RESTRICTED TO ASSESSMENTS THAT REVEAL THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    —————————————————————-

    THE OBJECTIVE REALITIES OF WHAT IS BEING ASSESSED?

    Start here

    EVEN,  BEFORE GOVERNOR INSLEE’S WA STATE DROUGHT DECLARATION

    INSTREAM FLOW WAS AN ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    ——————————————————–

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/highdry-and-destitute/

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND 

    DESTITUTE  by definition, WITHOUT THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE.

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    AFTER, GOVERNOR INSLEE’S WA STATE DROUGHT DECLARATION?

    INSTREAM FLOW IS NOW A  CRITICAL ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    —————————————————-

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    Community Drought Forum

    May 21, 2015

    6:00-8:30PM

    Guy Cole Convention Center

    202 North Blake Avenue, Sequim, WA 98382

     ————————————————————-

    Please GO PUBLIC with this.

    Invite every “CITIZEN” that is critically affected by

    Ecology’s WA State Drought Response?

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs

    GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    PLEASE  attend this Clallam County Community Drought Forum

    JEFF MARTI DROUGHT COORDINATOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WILL BE THERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

    ————————————————————————————————————

    ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT ECOLOGY’S WATER VALUE JUDGMENT?

    GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WRAC)

    Meetings are normally attended by about FORTY PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT STATE AGENCIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WATER UTILITIES, INDIAN TRIBES, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, CONSULTANTS, LAW FIRMS AND OTHER WATER STAKEHOLDERS. 

     GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    CONTACT

    Chris Anderson
    Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program
    e-mail: chris.anderson@ecy.wa.gov
    Phone: 360-407-6634

     


  • Out of Towner’s Undue Influence?

    Out of  Towner’s Undue Influence?

    Open Public Meeting Act?

    LOCAL LEGAL Public Notification?

    LOCAL Public meetings?

    Who’s being notified?  And?  Who’s being invited?  to OUR LOCAL PUBLIC MEETINGS?

    OUT OF TOWNER’S ARE NOT LOCAL.

    LOCAL NGO’S ETC.,  IN AN ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE, THE OUTCOME OF OUR  LOCAL ISSUES AND PROMOTE THEIR  SPECIAL INTERESTS AND PERSONAL AGENDAS,  ARE EMAILING OUT AND NOTIFYING HUGE LISTS to other NGO OUT of TOWNER’S etc., some are GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL  SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.

    THEY ARE EMAILED, NOTIFIED AND THEY DO COME TO LOCAL PUBLIC MEETINGS.

    One STARTLING LOCAL example has been brought to my attention.

    How HUGE can a local NGO’s email  invite list to OUT of TOWNER’S be?

    About THREE PAGES of open Cc: including names and email addresses

    What size is normal? for this local NGO’s email  invite list?

    About  THREE INCHES of open Cc: including names and email addresses

    ————————————————————————————

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

    HISTORICALLY “STRIKE BREAKERS” were/are NOT LOCAL. LARGE NUMBERS OF OUT OF TOWN Strike breakers WERE NOTIFIED, INVITED AND ENCOURAGED  TO THREATEN , PICKET, BLOCK, HARASS, EVEN PHYSICALLY  INTIMIDATE LOCAL CITIZENS AND PLACE UNDUE INFLUENCE ON THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

    WHAT’S  THE DIFFERENCE?

    LARGE NUMBERS OF OUT OF TOWNERS, NOT LOCALS? LARGE NUMBERS OF OUT OF TOWNER’S,NGO’S  NOTIFIED, EMAILED AND INVITED TO COME TO LOCAL TOWNS AND CITIES, TO intimidate LOCAL CITIZENS and PLACE UNDUE INFLUENCE ON NOT JUST THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BUT STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL.

    TO RESTRICT, PROHIBIT COAL MINING? COAL TRAINS? OIL TRAINS? PIPELINES? LOGGING? MILLS? ROAD CONSTRUCTION? LOCAL DEVELOPMENT? TAKE ALL OF OUR WATER, AND TO THREATEN THE ECONOMY OF  OUR LOCAL CITIZENS, OUR STATES AND EVEN OUR FEDERAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY?

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

    WHEN EVEN THE APPOINTED FEDERAL EPA IS MAKING THE ROUNDS IN THE ENTIRE U.S.A. WITH THE FEDERAL INTENT OF AND  TO…

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT COAL MINING?

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT COAL TRAINS?

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT OIL TRAINS?

     RESTRICT, PROHIBIT PIPELINES?  PRESIDENTIAL VETO…

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT LOGGING?

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT MILLS?

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT ROAD CONSTRUCTION, CLOSE AND DESTROY ROADS.

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT?

     BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND OTHERS,  TAKING OF OUR PUBLIC WATER,

     AND TO

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT AND THREATEN THE ECONOMY OF  OUR LOCAL CITIZENS,

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT AND THREATEN OUR STATES AND EVEN OUR FEDERAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY?

    —————————————————————————————————

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT?

    ————————————————-

    One of the most THE MOST BLATANT LOCAL INTENTS? (of bad behavior) done openly and unashamedly

    TO PLACE UNDUE INFLUENCE ON NOT JUST THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BUT STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL.

    WAS THE SIERRA CLUB ALERT SENT, EMAILED  OUT  TO ITS HUGE MEMBERSHIP, TO CRASH  THE LOCAL SEQUIM PUBLIC FORUM WITH REP. DEREK KILMER, THAT WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE LOCAL CITIZENS INPUT ON THE WILD OLYMPICS TO OUR LOCAL FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE.

    Indeed, the SIERRA CLUB ALERT did create a carpool and did provide THEIR 15-20 OUT OF TOWNERS WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE UNDUE INFLUENCE ON NOT JUST THE LOCAL ELECTED GOVERNMENT, BUT STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ELECTED AS WELL.

    the bottom line?

    NGO OUT OF TOWNER’S HAVE UNDUE INFLUENCE ON  AND OVER OUR LOCAL ELECTED GOVERNMENT, AND OUR STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ELECTED AS WELL.

     

     


  • Navy Sonobuoys-Bombs-Explosives

    IN “THE  MODIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT” for Northwest training and testing, the Navy INCREASED THE NUMBER OF PLANNED SONOBUOYS FROM 20 TO 720.

    —————————————————————-

    The Associated Press January 4, 2015

    Navy considers more sonobuoys off Pacific Coast

    PORTLAND, Ore. — The U.S. Navy could significantly increase the number of sonobuoys it plans to deploy off the Pacific Coast.

    The floating, acoustic surveillance devices are used in ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE.

    The Oregonian reports (http://is.gd/4JLsbt ) that in a modified environmental assessment for Northwest training and testing, the Navy increased the number of planned sonobuoys from 20 to 720.

    They would be in areas at least 12 miles offshore FROM ALASKA, WASHINGTON, OREGON AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.

    Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2015/01/04/4313908_navy-considers-more-sonobuoys.html?sp=/99/406/552/&rh=1#storylink=cpy

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    A basic understanding of the modeling of acoustic and BOMBS, EXPLOSIVE EXPOSURES Undertaken for Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND.

    ————————————————————————-

    Start here…

    Behind My Back | Navy Bombing-Explosives-Sonar?

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/01/…/navybombingexplosives-and-sona

    5 days ago – FACT IS EXPLOSIVES In the area also are part of the draft document, although the Navy has said that BOMBING exercises take place outside … the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which consists of 2,408 square nautical miles off the Olympic Peninsula coastline.

    ———————————————————————————————

    A basic understanding of the modeling of acoustic and BOMBS, EXPLOSIVE EXPOSURES

    ——————————————————————————————–

    AVY: DOLPHINS, WHALES WILL DIE DURING NEW UNDERWATER EXPLOSIVE TESTS

    By Cheryl K. Chumley – The Washington Times – Friday, August 30, 2013

    THE NAVY SAID IN A REPORT ON FRIDAY THAT TRAINING AND TESTING FOR NEW UNDERWATER EXPLOSIVES COULD KILL HUNDREDS OF WHALES AND DOLPHINS, AND INJURE TENS OF THOUSANDS MORE, IN THE COMING FIVE YEARS.

     The training is set for ocean waters off the East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico and Southern California and Hawaii, and is planned from 2014 to 2019, The Associated Press reported.

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    UPDATE JAN 6, 2015 THEY WOULD BE IN AREAS AT LEAST 12 MILES OFFSHORE FROM ALASKA, WASHINGTON, OREGON AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/navy-dolphins-will-die-during-new-underwater-explo/#ixzz3O4BErsVH

    —————————————————————————————–

    A REASONABLE MANS UNDERSTANDING? OF  ACTIVE SONOBUOYS, BOMBS AND EXPLOSIVE EXPOSURES?

    Up Close and Dangerous: Dynamite Fishing – HowStuffWorks

    animals.howstuffworks.com/33806-upclose-and-dangerousdynamitefi

    Dynamite fishing is a very destructive way of fishing — although it stuns fish, it also … LEARN MORE in this clip from Animal Planet’s “Up Close and Dangerous” series.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    Read more STUFF here ( A 48  page document)

    Analysis of Animal Avoidance Behavior and Mitigation …

    mitt-eis.com/…/Avoidance_Mitigation_TR_10%20SEP%202013_MITT_…

    event (i.e., sonars or explosives) and tracks the acoustic exposure history of each animal at (a dosimeter … or reduce marine mammal and sea turtle exposures to explosives and high intensity sound, ….. EXPLOSIVE SONOBUOYS USING 0.6–2.5 LB.

    A basic understanding of the modeling of acoustic and EXPLOSIVE EXPOSURES undertaken for the MarianaI slands Training and Testing DraftEIS/OEIS IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND.

    ————————————————————————

    If Look outs are able to observe the mitigation zone up to and during an explosion, the explosive activity would be halted or delayed if a marine mammal is observed and would not resume until the animal is thought to be out of the mitigation zone

    ———————————————————-

    Really?  After? During an explosion?

    —————————————————————————–

    Read a gazillion more  pages of STUFF  here

    —————————————————–

    Northwest Training and Testing Activities

    Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    /Overseas Environmental Impact Statement

    THE NAVY’S REQUEST FOR THE RENEWAL OF ITS FIVE-YEAR MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT PERMIT, IS AT http://tinyurl.com/PDN-Sonobuoy2.

    VOLUME 1, January 2014 (is a 940 page document)

    NWTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager

    Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest,

    EV21.KK1101 Tautog  Circle Silverdale, WA 98315

    In this EIS/OEIS, the Navy analyzes potential environmental impacts

    that result or COULD RESULT FROM ACTIVITIES under the

    No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2.

    Resource areas that will be addressed include,

     BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO,

    sediments and water quality, air quality, marine habitats,

    marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, marine vegetation, marine invertebrates, fish, cultural resources, Native American and Native Alaskan traditional resources, socioeconomic resources, and public health and safety

    Public meetings are planned Jan. 12 in Poulsbo, Jan. 13 in Aberdeen, Jan. 14 in Newport, Ore., and Jan. 16 in Eureka, Calif.

    NO PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE PLANNED ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA.

    The Navy gave no time line for the process, but said that it planned to adjust training and testing activities “to the level needed to support Navy requirements beginning October 2015.”

    The final environmental impact statement will be released for a 30-day wait period before the Nary makes a decision and releases a record of decision.

    ————————————————————————–

    THE DOCUMENTED STUFF

    NWTT EIS/OEIS modified environmental assessment

    Table 3.4-23: Activities with Multiple Non-Concurrent Impulse or Explosions

    Training Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface)

    Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Surface)–Ship

    Mine Neutralization–Explosive Ordnance Disposal Sinking Exercise

     Note: There are no testing activities in the Study Area for which this applies

    ———————————————————————————

    The Navy increased the number of planned sonobuoys from 20 to 720.

    Under Alternative 1, the number of training events that use chaff (the solid metal and heavy plastic objects?)  in the Offshore Area would increase from 2,900 to 5,000 per year compared to the No Action Alternative, and the number of events that use flares would increase from 184 to 224 per year

    THESE ACTIVITIES WOULD RESULT IN INADVERTENT TAKES OF MARINE MAMMALS IN THE STUDY AREA Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other

    active acoustic sources for testing activities as described under

    Alternative 2:

    May expose marine mammals up to 98,220 times annually to sound levels that would be considered Level B harassment

    ————————————————————————————————–

    Conclusion Testing activities under Alternative 2

    include the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources as described in Section3.0.5.3.

    1 (Acoustic Stressors).

    These activities would result in inadvertent takes of marine mammals in the Study Area Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other

    active acoustic sources for testing activities as described under

    Alternative 2:

    May expose marine mammals up to 98,220 times annually to sound levels that would be considered Level B harassment

    •May expose marine mammals up to 141 times annually to sound levels that would be considered Level A harassment

    Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources during testing activities as described under

    Alternative2:

    May affect, and is likely to adversely affect the humpback whale, blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, Western North Pacific gray whale, sperm whale, southern resident killer whale, and Guadalupe fur seal

    •Would have no effect on North Pacific right whale

    Would have no effect on southern resident killer whale critical HABITAT?

    ————————————————————————–

    Offshore Area

    Under Alternative 1, the number of training events that use chaff (the solid metal and heavy plastic objects)  in the Offshore Area would increase from 2,900 to 5,000 per year compared to the No Action Alternative, and the number of events that use flares would increase from 184 to 224 per year compared to the No Action Alternative Other possible concerns that have been identified include toxic plastic additives and toxic contaminants that could be adsorbed to the plastic from ambient seawater. Pierceet al. (2004)

    ————————————————-

    VOLUME 1, January 2014 (is a 940 page document)

     

    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY, WHICH IS TO SUPPORT THE NAVY’S REQUEST FOR THE RENEWAL OF ITS FIVE-YEAR MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT PERMIT

    http://tinyurl.com/PDN-Sonobuoy2.

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    READ MUCH LESS STUFF IN THE MEDIA?

    The Associated Press January 4, 2015

    Sunday Full story: The Fresno Bee

    PORTLAND, Ore. — The U.S. Navy could significantly increase the number of sonobuoys it plans to deploy off the Pacific Coast.

    The floating, acoustic surveillance devices are used in anti-submarine warfare. The Oregonian reports (http://is.gd/4JLsbt ) that in a modified environmental assessment for Northwest training and testing, the Navy increased the number of planned sonobuoys from 20 to 720.

    They would be in areas at least 12 miles offshore from Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Northern California.

    The Navy acknowledges that deploying more of them is likely to harm endangered leatherneck turtles. It’s accepting public comments until Feb. 2.

    In addition to more buoys, the document also details additional “maritime security operations” that weren’t reviewed in the earlier environmental assessment, possibly including escorts for submarines, search-and-seizure exercises, and anti-piracy missions.

    Information from: The Oregonian, http://www.oregonlive.com

    Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2015/01/04/4313908_navy-considers-more-sonobuoys.html?sp=/99/406/552/&rh=1#storylink=cpy

    ————————————————————————–

    TO Take action  send an email to The Honorable Charles T. Hagel, U.S. Secretary of Defense. You can email him at charles.t.hagel.mil@mail.mil.

     


  • Navy Bombing-Explosives-Sonar?

    Don’t you just love how it started?

    OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT

    FACT IS  He said, “Just a couple of roads for a couple of pick-up trucks”

    ——————————————————————————————-

    UPDATE  JAN. 1, 2015 “HAPPY NEW YEAR”

    FACT IS  In January, THE NAVY RELEASED A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY OF TRAINING EXERCISES AND USE OF SONAR AND EXPLOSIVES in the training zone that includes areas off the North Olympic Peninsula’s Pacific Coast — including the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary — off Indian Island and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

    —————————————
    FACT IS  EXPLOSIVES In the area also are part of the draft document, although the Navy has said that BOMBING exercises take place outside the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which consists of 2,408 square nautical miles off the Olympic Peninsula coastline.

    FACT IS  WHALES AND OTHER SEA MAMMALS DON’T HAVE A CLUE where the BOUNDARIES of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary are located.

     FACT IS  BOMBING, EXPLOSIVES AND SONAR WOULD HARM ENDANGERED SPECIES WHALES AND OTHER SEA MAMMALS.

     FACT IS  THE 1,818-PAGE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY, WHICH IS TO SUPPORT THE NAVY’S REQUEST FOR THE RENEWAL OF ITS FIVE-YEAR MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT PERMIT, IS AT http://tinyurl.com/PDN-Sonobuoy2.

    ——————————————

    FACT IS  SURTASS LFA Sonar & Issuance of MMPA Letters of …

    www.nmfs.noaa.gov/…/surtass_lfa_2014….

    National Marine Fisheries Service

    Aug 15, 2014 – Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion … authorization for the U.S. Navy to “take” marine mammals …

     FACT IS  a 386 PAGE DOCUMENT Biological Opinion on SURTASS LFA Sonar & Issuance of MMPA Letters of Authorization for 2014-2015 FPR-2014-9082

    These Letters of Authorization would be effective for one year from 15 August 2014 to 14 August 2015.

    FACT IS  LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION THAT WOULD ALLOW THE U.S. NAVY TO “TAKE” MARINE MAMMALS incidental to those SURTASS LFA sonar activities.

     FACT IS  The purpose of the Navy’s proposed action is to meet the United States’ need for an improved ability to detect quieter and harder-to-find foreign submarines at long range to provide U.S. forces with adequate time to respond to potential submarine threats (Navy, 2012a)

    FACT IS  THIS APPROACH IS CONSISTENT WITH CONGRESS’ INTENT that we coordinate and integrate the decision-making process under MMPA and ESA to the maximum extent practicable, so this opinion ANALYZES THE TRAINING, TESTING AND OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES DURING THE TIME AND IN THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA COVERED by the MMPA regulations, which are limited to “PERIODS OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS.” 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(i)

    FACT IS  Further, NMFS has determined to structure this consultation in this way to ensure that THE EFFECTS OF REASONABLY ANTICIPATED TRAINING, TESTING AND OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES MAY BE ANALYZED CLOSE IN TIME TO THEIR OCCURRENCE.

    FACT IS  THE STRAITS OF JUAN DE FUCA  ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS. The international boundary  between Canada and the United States  runs down the center of the Strait. Question is? Has the CANADIAN, British Columbia government been notified by the US government?

     FACT IS  The SONOBUOYS  contract has been  already been signed, sealed and the SONOBUOYS are waiting to be delivered.

    —————————————————

    FACT IS  US Navy to receive passive and active sonobuoys from …

    www.naval-technology.com/…/newsus-erapsco-p…

    Naval‑technology.com

    Sep 2, 2013 – ERAPSCO, a joint venture between Sparton and Ultra Electronics (ULE) subsidiary USSI, has been awarded subcontracts to supply sonobuoys …

    ———————————————————-

    FACT IS  In the draft document released in January, the preferred alternative would increase the tempo of new buoy testing activities from 54 activities with 510 buoys, to 59 activities with 561 buoys.

    FACT IS  The draft environmental impact study and supplement for the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area are separate from a controversial electronic warfare training project in the Olympic Military Operations Area

     FACT IS THE NAVY IS ACCEPTING COMMENTS THROUGH FEB. 2, 2015.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————

    Peninsula Daily News Last modified: December 23. 2014 7:22PM

    NAVY SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON SONAR USE IN TRAINING with supplement to environmental impact statement

    The U.S. Navy has completed a supplement to an environmental impact statement that examines the proposed INCREASED USE OF SONAR IN THE NORTHWEST TRAINING AND TESTING AREA.

    The Northwest Training and Testing Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement is available for public review and comment online at http://tinyurl.com/PDN-eissonar.

    THE NAVY IS ACCEPTING COMMENTS THROUGH FEB. 2, 2015.

    The draft environmental impact study and supplement for the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area are separate from a controversial electronic warfare training project in the Olympic Military Operations Area for which the Navy is seeking U.S. Forest Service permits.

    In January, the Navy released a draft environmental impact study of training exercises and use of sonar and explosives in the training zone that includes areas off the North Olympic Peninsula’s Pacific Coast — including the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary — off Indian Island and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

    Explosives in the area also are part of the draft document, although the Navy has said that bombing exercises take place outside the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which consists of 2,408 square nautical miles off the Olympic Peninsula coastline.

    Following publication of the draft, the Navy determined that updated training requirements would result in changes to the proposed action.

    This supplement presents these changes and “significant new information relevant to environmental concerns,” the Navy said.

    The changes presented in the supplement include an updated requirement for increased use of sonobuoys during training in the Northwest Training Range Complex.

    The supplement also addresses additional analysis related to assessing impacts of ongoing maritime security operations.

    CRITICS HAVE WORRIED THAT SONAR COULD HARM WHALES AND OTHER SEA MAMMALS.

    Sonobuoys are both active, meaning they emit sonar, or inactive, meaning that they only collect sounds. They collect and transmit information about the marine environment and potential threats and targets.

    ————————————————————————————————————–

    US Navy to receive passive and active sonobuoys from …

    www.naval-technology.com/…/newsus-erapsco-p…

    Naval‑technology.com

    Sep 2, 2013 – ERAPSCO, a joint venture between Sparton and Ultra Electronics (ULE) subsidiary USSI, has been awarded subcontracts to supply sonobuoys …

    ——————————————————————–

    Navy orders new supplies of anti-submarine sonobuoys for …

    www.militaryaerospace.com › Home › Sea Technology

    Jul 17, 2014 – Sonobuoys enable Navy ASW forces to detect, track, and pinpoint potentially hostile submarines operating in the open ocean that could be …

    ————————————————————————–
    In the draft document released in January, the preferred alternative would increase the tempo of new buoy testing activities from 54 activities with 510 buoys, to 59 activities with 561 buoys.

    ——————————————————————————————

    Navy Consolidated Sonobuoys

    fas.org/man/dod…/ntsp-Sonobuoy.pdf

    Federation of American Scientists

    NAVY CONSOLIDATED SONOBUOYS i. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. This Navy Training System Plan addresses the continuing development and forthcoming.

    —————————————————————————————–

    All comments on the supplement must be postmarked or received online by the February deadline to be considered in the final document.

    THE 1,818-PAGE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY, WHICH IS TO SUPPORT THE NAVY’S REQUEST FOR THE RENEWAL OF ITS FIVE-YEAR MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT PERMIT, IS AThttp://tinyurl.com/PDN-Sonobuoy2.

    Comments on the original draft study were accepted between Jan. 24-April 15 and will be considered in the development of the final statement, the Navy said.

    The supplement can be reviewed at the following locations:

    ■ Jefferson County Library, 620 Cedar Ave., Port Hadlock.

    ■ Port Angeles Library, 2210 S. Peabody St.

    ■ Port Townsend Library, 1220 Lawrence St.

    Public meetings are planned Jan. 12 in Poulsbo, Jan. 13 in Aberdeen, Jan. 14 in Newport, Ore., and Jan. 16 in Eureka, Calif.

    NONE ARE PLANNED ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA.

    The Navy gave no time line for the process, but said that it planned to adjust training and testing activities “to the level needed to support Navy requirements beginning October 2015.”

    The final environmental impact statement will be released for a 30-day wait period before the Nary makes a decision and releases a record of decision.

    Written comments on the supplement may be submitted via the project website, in person at a public meeting or by mail to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Attn: Ms. Kimberly Kler — NWTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager, 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203, Silverdale, WA 98315-1101.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    The bottom line FACT IS

     NO PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE PLANNED ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA.

     

     


  • We Need a New Public Notice Act

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    CASES IN POINT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL

    1. THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT.

    2. THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE.

    3.The Pacific Coast Drone project

    4. The Navy residential training that terrorized Port Angeles WA

    5. The West End Broad Band meetings

    6. WA STATE PARKS BLUE RIBBON PANEL

    Best known as, what we don’t notify  American citizens about “CAN” hurt them,

    BUT… it will all be over before American people find out what the hell is going on, so no worries.

    American people won’t feel a thing until after the comment period has expired.

    Then American people can read all about it in the local newspaper, after it’s been passed, to find out what’s in it, what it is and what it was all about.

    —————————————————————————–

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    WOW… READ ALL ABOUT IT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    —————————————————————————————–

    HERE AND NOW? IN THE REAL WORLD of “We the People”

    WHAT IS THE LOCAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    IF YOU ARE HAVING A LOCAL, HUGE MULTI-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE SALE, RUMMAGE SALE OR FLEA MARKET?

    AND YOU REALLY WANT THE PUBLIC TO COME?

    You advertise in advance. YOU POST BIG SIGNS WITH THE WHERE AND WHEN every couple of blocks with BIG ARROWS TO KEEP REMINDING AND  INVITING  THE PUBLIC.

    LOCALLY YOU SEE A BIG RUMMAGE SALE BANNER ACROSS FRONT STREET

    AND OUR RADIO STATION KONP GOES ON AND ON ABOUT LOCAL GARAGE SALES

    AND GUYS WEARING SANDWICH BOARDS, DOING THE HAPPY DANCE IN FRONT OF LES SCHWABS, FOR A FLEA MARKET.

    The BIG BANNER across front street even notified THE HOMELESS to come on down to the Vern Burton center and  sign up for local HOMELESS programs and benefits.

    —————————————————————–

    I have mentioned the Real World phenomena  of advertising at Planning Commission Meetings.

    A private (government) response was? “This is not the real world”

    —————————————————————————————-

    OH..BUT… IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO  ADVERTISE AND NOTIFY THE AFFECTED LOCAL’S?

    As FOX NEWS,  Judge Jeanine would say….REALLY?

    —————————————————————————

    After the of the Navy’s PUBLIC FORUM FIASCO in PA,  on Electronic Warfare on  the Olympic Peninsula.

    FIASCO? by definition,  a total failure, especially a humiliating or ludicrous one

    —————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  WHAT CAN”WE THE PEOPLE DO”?

    Expose them, every time there is a  fatal error in Due Process

    Remind them of WA State Law RCW 42.56.030

    THE PEOPLE, IN DELEGATING AUTHORITY, DO NOT GIVE THEIR PUBLIC SERVANTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM TO KNOW. etc.

    ———————————————————————————-

    Use Clallam County Home Rule to create a more stringent  public notification and participation process by the county and for the residents of Clallam County, including COUNTY FUNDING for REAL WORLD  advertising.

    Great minds think alike

    HERE IS THE LOCAL SOLUTION

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    Contents

    THREE MINUTES AT THE MICROPHONE

    HOW OUTDATED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION LAWS ARE CORRODING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

    POLICY OPTIONS FOR STRENGTHENING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

    A MODEL MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ORDINANCE

    A MODEL STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT

    AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

    ACT AND GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

    THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTEXT FOR VOICE

    RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

    ………………………………………………………………

    From the Deliberative Democracy Consortium:

    Tired of tense, unproductive public meetings? Want to embed better online and face-to-face processes in the way governments work? Making Public Participation Legal, a new publication of the National Civic League, includes a set of tools, including a model ordinance, set of policy options, and resource list, to help communities improve public participation. The publication is now available for free. Download here. 

    Most of the laws that govern public participation in the United States are over thirty years old. They do not match the expectations and capacities of citizens today, they predate the Internet, and they do not reflect the lessons learned in the last two decades about how citizens and governments can work together. Increasingly, public officials and staff are wondering whether the best practices in participation are in fact supported – or even allowed – by the law.

    Over the past year, the Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation has produced new tools, including a model local ordinance and model amendment to state legislation, in order to help create a more supportive, productive, and equitable environment for public participation. The Working Group has been coordinated by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC).

    Making Public Participation Legal is a publication of the National Civic League, with support from the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. The Working Group also includes representatives of the American Bar AssociationInternational Municipal Lawyers AssociationNational League of CitiesPolicy Consensus InitiativeInternational Association for Public Participation, and International City/County Management Association, as well as leading practitioners and scholars of public participation.

    Communities that want to move forward with new public engagement processes and policies can also turn to an array of new resources being offered through ICMA’s Center for Management Strategies. CMS has assembled a team of leading engagement practitioners, research specialists, and subject matter experts who can help local governments develop and implement effective civic engagement programs.

    —————————————————————————

    WOW AND CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A HOME RULE CHARTER

    AND 15 NEW CHARTER MEMBERS

    AND THREE CONSERVATIVE COMMISSIONERS

    HOT DAMN… LET’S GO FOR IT..

     

     


  • A Comment on Electronic Warfare

    She was there..
    This is her comment
    —————————-
    Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 2:27 AM
    Subject: Olympic peninsula electronic warfare
    —————————————————————–

    Hey Gang

    Great turn out in Pacific Beach. I’d say a good 90% were no more convinced by the meetings end, that the health and safety for human, wildlife or the natural environment, the NAVY EA claims to be safe, really AREN’T proven to be. But who are we to question the Navy?

    Or is it even the Navy we should be questioning?
    Two highly qualified guests on both National Defense and the Environment were present speaking on behalf of the Public concerns as well as opinions of their own.

    PB was happy to welcome Craig B Hulet who has 35 years experience in International Relations,

    Military, Terrorism, Business and Security under his belt. He has been a consultant to Federal law enforcement DEA, ATF&E on Justice and Homeland Security for over 25 years and has written many books on the Geopolitical climate in these areas.

    Karen Sullivan biologist and environmental Science professional was also welcomed and shared the suspected/known dangers of this type of EW technology on ALL life itself.

    The technology that has never been proven safe but only assumed safe and

    still not properly tested. I can’t thank them enough for the informative comments and questions addressed to the Navy. You can view the 139 page PDF of Mr. Hulets scope 

    on the Navy’s 228 page EW Warfare PDF on his website. Just google Craig B Hulet or Karen Sullivan for websites and information pertaining to EW warfare on the Olympic Peninsula. READ these informative PDF’s.

    These contain points from some of the issues discussed at the meeting. I tried to forward the PDF’s but ran into All kinds

    of problems and a clogged up mail box that I can’t delete the sending process from.

    I hope I didn’t pass the mail problem on to all you too.

    Nothing in my outbox, no mail, but it just keeps sending and failing and sending and failing????????? geesh!

    Any way. The outcome of this meeting? I can only give my opinion.

    DOG and PONY SHOW by the Navy? YES. They did what they were

    sent out to do. Read from parts of the 228 page EA assessment and try to verify it’s solidity.
    The Navy stated,  they are up in the skies now! They have been there since the 1940’s. (what’s new?).  They’ve increased their air traffic and flight patterns since 2008 when they started talking about implementing these War plans here,

    with the USFS and the Committee of Armed Forces (that would be Ex-Dicks and

    currently Kilmer?). Yep mister wild lands man himself under the “green mask” was

    here to take land for the federal government in more ways then one, apparently 

    The green groups who secured his position in the House (for his push on Federal

    takeover of PUBLIC lands for locked up wilderness), got their wish. 2 days or so

    after the elections WILD OLYMPICS RE-surfaced.

    Waste no time Kilmer did his part! just days before the Navy’s Warfare Plans

    surfaced, with little to no public knowledge of it’s existence. Has the green party’s

    spiritual environmental plans been crushed?

     WOAH…. Nellie! Right in the thick of it! Gordon and his tam wearing team were

    there just like little statues in a row, as always.  Lining up with panic stricken faces.

    We warned green parties this was not about wilderness or the future of our forests,

    our natural resources or our children and grandchildren.

    It was about occupation and federal control to do ANYTHING and everything

    they deem fit. I think some are catching the clue.

    They must have forgotten  Wa. State has an “Obama Congress”.

    Starry eyed, the green parties believed they were the “chosen ones”. SURPRISE?

    Look who’s pushed them off their table? Their own congressman? 

    What? Never mentioning PUBLICLY EW warfare was already in the making long

    before choking out the worthless, Wild Olympics debacle? Does it matter in which way

    the Federal Government takes our PUBLIC, PRIVATE or RESOURCE lands away? I’m sure they will be very curious to ask congressman Wild Kid bilkhawk what the deal is. Never know when things will come back to kick ones ass (heehaw).
    By the end of the meeting. It was pretty much written in plain black and white.
    Done Deal – To Bad – We’re already here AND DON’T PLAN ON GOING ELSEWHERE

    nor did they give the impression they would be forced to. The Military will

    basically trump the wilderness laws and up their flight activity a said 10%.
    Since 2008 we’ve seen it take a 10% or more leap in air activity already.

    The Military would not discuss the current chemtrailing.

    Their response to that was “we’re here to address the EW only”.

    They were not qualified to speak on anything but the EW presentation.

    They brushed that off their shoulders quite easily. So perhaps another day,

    with another dollar we’ll have to ask for PUBLIC transparency on the military activity

    that is currently spraying our skies and manipulating the natural environment

    in our atmosphere.
    The Military reasoning for moving here was, to save government costs and

    to bring military families closer together with their servicemen.
    (REALLY? I thought that was part of what a military family was geared to compensate for? 

    The possibility of a family serviceman or woman being called upon at any time

    to go preform their duties? That’s what they sign up for. Has the military become

    whiners now too under Obama-man? 

    Perhaps obama feels our military should be

    equal to the same room and board the foreign invaders are receiving with every illegals,

    father, brothers, sons, mothers, daughters cousins and their strings of children

    are now getting for busting over our borders. Closer family accommodations.

    450 Jose’s a day? Pick your family we will pay)

    Sorry everybody I couldn’t help myself).

    Saving on Government costs?

     
    FYI – One growler jet burns up to 1000 gal of fuel per hour. 8 hours of exercises

    (cut down from their original 12) per day and estimated 11 exercises per week.

    88,000 Gal. of fuel per week? HELLO EMISSIONS!

    The Olympic pristine environment?

    MOVE IT ON OVER!

    Human carbon emissions? Stop breathing or pay a higher price for your airspace!

    The US Navy is here.
    Violations were found by the USFS failures

    to go through necessary approval processes including Nepa assessment. 

    The Navy had the Nepa EA permit processing guidelines approved only.

    No sound testing for using this technology just guidelines they must follow.

    Of coruse they said they would follow. But no proof can be presented, without production,

    so to speak.
    Last but not least a question asked to the Navy: What are the health and safety

    concerns you have taken to protect the officers that will be operating inside of

    these emitter trucks at very close range and doesn’t this present a greater danger

    to them?

    The Navy stated under the their strict frequency guidelines and airspace,

    where these mobile emitters will be directing these waves (away from the truck),

    they foresee no problem or danger. Now here’s the “Tell all”.
    Also these won’t be Navy officers, they will be CIVILIANS who will be inside

     

     

    the emitter trucks!!!!!! DID YOU HEAR THAT DIANNE????

    I heard C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N-S.

    Correct me if I’m wrong
    So in other words,  if there are any guinea pigs out there, will you please raise your hands?

    Put the young boys on the front lines and civilians in the electromagnetic emitter trucks.

    Sound about right? What difference does it make? They are just numbers on paper,

    no special significance, just numbers similar to the young Viet-Nam war casualties.


    Lots of Reading to do on this highly controversial Warfare training.

    Both Craig B Hulet’s PDF and Karen Sullivens PDF are well worth your time

    in understanding the issues on all sides of the spectrum.
    A BIG thanks to Grays Harbor Commissioner Wes Cormier

    for arranging the Meeting in Grays Harbor County that Congressman Kilmer

    had no time for and felt it insignificant.

    Very poor representation on Kilmers part, our fine member on the board of

    The Committee Of Armed Forces. Ever hear him mention EW during his

    “visiting the naval base” back patting appearances?
    Lots of Quinault Residents showed up! NICE TO SEE.
    Only so much can be accomplished at an “informational” public meeting.

    From my observation this “informational” meeting proved only, that much

    more discussion needs to take place, more knowledge brought forward from all

    sides and many undocumented legal processes need to be thoroughly applied for

    and also studied before this plan should be allowed to move forward and be fully

    implemented. The comment period needs to be extended through next year I feel.

    BIG issues should not be allowed to offer the general public only a LITTLE time frame

    in order to bring all the necessary agencies and proper channels together to provide

    honest factual representation of this “proposed action. If you catch the scent of dead fish

    in the air you’ll know where it’s coming from.

    I personally see a Military coupe over U.S. Citizens coming in and taking the coast

    and half of Washington State with it. As Craig Hulet said (in so many words) he has never

    known the Military to stop in growth, once boots are on the ground.

    Move it on over the big bad dogs moving in. Remember,  the Military takes it’s orders

    from who ????????
    I believe this goes far deeper than Dean the Bean Millett.

    He’s the stoolie. I do believe most all of the Peninsula and half the Seattle and Tacoma

    and beyond have big issues with Dean.
    FYI – The USFS was not their to represent their case on their permit proposal.

    Dodging tomatoes can be exhilarating. Dean must be hiding under Mother May I’s apron strings.


    Who controls the USFS?
    Who controls the DEPT of INTERIOR and DEFENSE.

    Do we even know anymore? for sure?

    This has all the signs pointing to Agenda 21 full speed ahead and I do believe

    the military is here to begin it’s UN implementation. The Navy is extending their

    presence here to do this under orders, to do the job they are assigned to do. 

    I can respect that. But BY WHO’S IRON FIST? and for WHO’S real purpose.

    Does the military even know anymore?

    I guess it’s not their job to know. They are our Armed Forces and take

    the orders from the (choke) commander in chief by way of DHS/DOD, when the commander

    himself is out at a golf game and unavailable to take responsibility for action on anything. 

    No questions are supposed to be asked, they just serve.


    I love our Military and do genuinely thank them for their service and dedication. What would

    we have done in the past without them? I myself haven’t enough guts that come anywhere

    near the courage and dedication it takes to put their lives on the line everyday during

    training or actual combat missions. I appreciate what they do but I don’t feel this is the

    place to do it.

    Who can we trust anymore during a time when the American people seem to be under siege

    by their own U.S. President? to be turned over into hands of the United Nations warlord

    banking cartel?

    My instincts tell me to DUCK! cause we are under fire

    Well Doug and Dianne were there and may have absorbed things a bit differently.

    I know Dianne’s not shy so if I’ve crossed my wires, she will correct me.

    So Dianne please share how you comprehended what was revealed from this meeting and where you foresee this all going.
    My next Digest will follow the Grays Harbor SMP  Dec 17 also at Pacific Beach.
    Cheers!

     


  • WOW Wild Wilderness Warfare?

    WOW Wild Wilderness Warfare?

    PLUS….  Violations of Federal Law in the US Navy’s Procedures for Obtaining a
    Permit  to Conduct Electromagnetic Warfare Testing and Training in the Olympic National Forest?

    How in the world are Rep Kilmer and Senator Patty Murray going to pull this one off?

    ————————————————————————————-

    Dear elected public representatives and appointed administrative rulers, Federal, state, county and city (AKA Public Servants)

    This is the best OBJECTION, by Karen Sullivan, I have every read on the Olympic Peninsula Electronic Warfare Project

    Described to me by District Ranger Dean Millett as no big deal…

    “JUST A COUPLE OF ROADS FOR A COUPLE OF PICKUPS”

    PS – Just so you know, SHE is only one person, SIMPLY A CONCERNED CITIZEN who
    got a bee in her bonnet about this particular issue and decided to lend a
    hand. HER email volume has increased exponentially, with a lot of requests,
    and SHE cannot always answer every one, but SHE WILL  try. If we all lend our
    voices to Karen Sullivan  AND speak out, just think of the magnificent racket we can make!
    ————————————————————————————–

    Complete  text by Karen Sullivan  November 14, 2014

    Below is a clear proposal from a former employee who maps out why the
    proposed activity is not legal.  From the document:

    *Disclaimer: The author is not an attorney, but is a retired federal
    employee who worked under certain environmental laws and regulations, and
    who has a clear understanding of what a public process should be. *

    Dear Friends and Colleagues,

    Attached both as a PDF file and pasted into the body of this message,
    please find a summary of the ways in which I believe federal law has been
    violated by the Navy and the Forest Service, in the so-called public
    process and documentation associated with the Navy’s proposed
    electromagnetic warfare testing and training program for the Olympic
    National Forest.

    The reason for this lengthy document ( nearly 6000 words) is that neither unanimous public
    opposition nor the 2,000+ public comments submitted to the Forest Service
    so far have been found by the decision-maker, District Ranger Dean Millett,
    to be “substantive.”  Evidently, emotional pleas, descriptions of probable
    harm to small businesses and simple principled objections are discounted.
    Therefore, in order to rectify that lack as perceived by the Forest
    Service, I have attempted to give more substantive reasons why the Navy’s
    Environmental Assessment is defective and deficient and should be withdrawn
    or completely revised, and the Special Use Permit refused.

    I hope we can bring the total to 3,000 comments or more. Please feel free
    to use the information in here, share it and encourage more people to
    comment. You can comment more than once. Just go to:
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=42759
    and submit them.
    Best,
    Karen Sullivan

    PS – Just so you know, I’m only one person, simply a concerned citizen who
    got a bee in her bonnet about this particular issue and decided to lend a
    hand. My email volume has increased exponentially, with a lot of requests,
    and I cannot always answer every one, but I’ll try. If we all lend our
    voices to speak out, just think of the magnificent racket we can make!

    —————————————————————————————————————————–

    *Violations of Federal Law in the US Navy’s Procedures for Obtaining a
    Permit *
    *to Conduct Electromagnetic Warfare Testing and Training *
    *in the Olympic National Forest*
    *Contents:*
    *1. Summary*
    *2. Violations of Federal NEPA Law*
    *3. Violation of National Forest Management Act and Forest Plan *
    *4. Cumulative Impacts – Omissions in Documents*
    *5. Fraudulent Noise Measurements*
    *6. No Verification of Navy’s Claim of No Significant Impacts*
    *7. Some Unaddressed Public Concerns*
    *8. Conclusion*

    *Disclaimer: The author is not an attorney, but is a retired federal
    employee who worked under certain environmental laws and regulations, and
    who has a clear understanding of what a public process should be. *

    *Part 1*

    *Summary*
    The US Navy is proposing to take large swathes of Washington’s Olympic
    National Forest plus a large amount of airspace over Olympic National Park
    and the communities in the area, to run electronic warfare attack and
    detection testing and training, for 260 days per year, permanently, using
    at least 36 new supersonic attack jets and radiation emitters on the
    ground, in 15 locations. The Navy has refused to hold true public hearings
    in affected communities on the Olympic Peninsula, citing not enough money
    in their $11.5 million dollar budget. Each new jet costs between $68
    million and $77 million, depending on which figure is used, so the total
    equipment budget is approximately $2,785,500,000. No public notices were
    printed in any newspapers that directly serve the affected communities.

    *The issue boils down to:* Should the Forest Service issue a Special Use
    Permit to the Navy to use roads in the Olympic National Forest to run their
    electronic radiation-emitting truck-and-trailer combinations, which would
    entail numerous unannounced forest closures and other problems? In a
    Machivellian twist, Dean Millett, the Forest Service District Ranger who
    will be making the decision on whether or not to issue the permit, has been
    limited to a very narrow scope, considering only the impacts and effects
    from the truck-and-trailer rigs and nothing else. No jet noise, no jet
    emissions or fuel dumps, no hazards from air-based electronic attack
    weapons, no chronic radiation, no fire danger, or other concerns brought up
    by the public are being considered in issuing this permit. These other
    concerns have been labeled by Mr Millett as being “outside of his decision
    space.” Yet if he issues the permit for road use by the Navy’s emitters, it
    will trigger all of the other testing and training actions and their
    impacts, none of which were evaluated in the Navy’s Environmental
    Assessment of September 2014.  The Navy’s Environmental Impact Statement of
    2010 is unavailable for public comment because the Navy removed it from
    their web site.

    *A military program of electronic warfare on public land* qualifies as a
    major federal action and is thus subject to a public process under the
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or NEPA. This process includes
    hearings in affected communities whenever there is environmental
    controversy. These hearings must be in accordance with NEPA guidelines,
    which safeguard the public’s right to be heard.  In addition, the
    scientific evidence to back up statements must be thorough, accurate, and
    available for public scrutiny. In this case, the public’s right to know and
    participate has been severely abridged and the Navy’s “science” and legal
    maneuverings for justifying all of these impacts to our communities are
    shakier than the San Andreas Fault.
    *If the permit is issued,* it will likely affect other National Forest
    lands as well, all of which have long been considered appropriate for
    “…military training when compatible with other uses and in conformity with
    applicable Forest Plans,” in a Memorandum of Understanding between the
    Department of Defense and the US Department of Agriculture. In the Ocala
    National Forest in Florida, for example, the Navy maintains a live bombing
    range located half a mile from one campground and two miles from another.
    This is probably not what Theodore Roosevelt had in mind when he moved the
    Forest Service from the Department of the Interior to the Department of
    Agriculture.

    District Ranger Millett is expected to sign the permit despite almost
    unanimous public opposition, *unless the Forest Service receives formally
    and in writing what he called “substantive” comments by the end of the
    comment period on November 28*, *2014*. Mr Millett declined to define
    “substantive” when asked at a public informational meeting. Therefore, it
    is the aim of this document to provide readers with the best examples of
    substantive comments possible, short of legal advice from an attorney.

    *Public comments can be sent* to: dmillett@fs.fed.us, gtwahl@fs.fed.us, and
    inputted directly online at:
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=42759

    *Part 2*

    *Violations of Federal NEPA Law*

    *1. Failure to notify the public:* The Navy has violated the National
    Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) by failing to adequately notify the
    public. One 8”X11” poster stuck on bulletin boards at a couple of post
    offices, combined with tiny notices placed in a few newspapers many miles
    away from those that directly serve affected communities, are a ludicrous
    excuse for notifying the entire population of the Olympic Peninsula.
    Congressman Derek Kilmer’s office sent the Navy a packet with contact
    information for all the local newspapers in affected communities, along
    with a request to prominently post public notices in those papers. Neither
    the Navy nor the Forest Service placed a single notice in any local papers
    serving Olympic Peninsula communities. This is a clear violation of the
    spirit and intent of NEPA as well, and a bad faith gesture to residents of
    the Olympic Peninsula.

    *Why did the Navy discard requests from a congressman and deliberately
    violate federal law in their public notification process?*

    *2.  Failure to record public comments: *Due to the high volume of
    complaints received, Rep. Kilmer asked the Navy to hold public meetings.
    Since then the Navy has made it repeatedly clear that were it not for
    Congressman Kilmer’s request for public meetings, there would be none on
    the Olympic Peninsula. Instead of holding hearings under NEPA, however, the
    Navy and Forest Service held “Informational Meetings.” The fact that none
    of the public’s comments were officially recorded at any of the meetings in
    Forks, Port Angeles and Pacific Beach has further upset people’s confidence
    in government and muddied the understanding of the NEPA process. Most are
    wondering why they aren’t getting a fair shake under normal NEPA procedure.
    CEQ regulations require that agencies “make diligent efforts to involve the
    public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR
    1506.6(a)). “Informational meetings” fulfill neither NEPA requirements nor
    the public’s desire to comment, ask questions, and receive answers,
    especially when people are given one minute to speak and then interrupted
    frequently. The Navy has failed to conduct a proper NEPA process.

    *Why does the Navy refuse to hold hearings and record public comments?*

    * 3. Commenters are given no legal “standing:”* Since none of the hundreds
    of people who have attended the Navy’s informational meetings have had
    their comments recorded, none have any legal standing in the NEPA process,
    unless they submitted their comments again through other avenues that
    require knowing the email addresses of certain officials, or knowing where
    the Forest Service’s web-based NEPA page is. Had these been true public
    hearings, all of those people would now have legal standing, because many
    also held printed comments in their hands, ready to submit after they
    finished speaking. In the Port Angeles meeting, both the Navy and Forest
    Service dismissed the idea of recording comments despite being repeatedly
    challenged to by attendees. The public’s right to a full hearing is
    codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR, and in the State of
    Washington Revised Code, at RCW 42.30.

    *Why were commenters at public meetings given no legal standing in the NEPA
    process?*

    *4. What legal standing means:* Any grievances the public has about
    electromagnetic warfare testing and training MUST be addressed in public
    comments first, in order to have legal standing, which means we are giving
    the Forest Service and the Navy notice that we, the public, think these
    grievances should be addressed. If those grievances are not rectified, any
    legal actions on behalf of the public that follow would have more
    authority, because the Navy had been aware of the grievances yet chose not
    to address them. Without legal standing, those legal actions on behalf of
    the public would likely have less authority due to the implication of no
    notice of grievance being given in public comments. This is a denial of due
    process as stipulated in NEPA, and a distortion of the true amount of
    public concern. On page 1-8 of the Environmental Assessment, the Navy
    states, “No comments were received on the draft EA.” That is *exactly* the
    fear of people who attended those meetings, that their comments would not
    be acknowledged and that the absence of their comments will be reflected
    similarly by the Navy as it did in the EA, thus implying less public
    interest than there really is.

    *5. When hearings are required:* Public meetings or hearings “…are required
    when there may be substantial environmental controversy concerning the
    environmental effects of the proposed action, a substantial interest in
    holding the meeting, or a request for a meeting by another agency with
    jurisdiction over the action.” (40 CFR 1506.6 (c)).  Proper hearings under
    NEPA have not been held in affected communities, and the usual citizen’s
    right to register comments at public hearings has been denied. Therefore
    the Navy and the Forest Service have violated NEPA in this regard, too.

    *Why are the Navy and Forest Service discounting the extreme level of
    public sentiment that is being amply demonstrated in other ways besides
    formal written comments? *

    *6. Written comments are also being discounted:* Despite the level of
    public concern remaining extremely high, District Ranger Dean Millett was
    recorded on videotape during the meeting in Port Angeles saying that as of
    November 6, with regard to formal written public comments, the Forest
    Service had received “nothing substantive” that would stop him from signing
    the permit. He is looking exclusively for defects in the Environmental
    Assessment, and insists that public opinion doesn’t count if people simply
    express their objections. He also has said that 2,000 written comments are
    “not a lot” and have had no effect on him. The comment period has been
    extended twice, yet the public is still struggling to wade through the
    nearly 5,000 pages of scientific and technical documentation, much of which
    remains unavailable to them. By not allowing the public sufficient time to
    catch up with a process they entered late, through no fault of their own,
    and by not allowing them time to develop substantive comments, the Forest
    Service is compromising NEPA law.

    *What is the point of a public comment process if the Forest Service
    ignores public opinion?*

    *This is why the Forest Service needs to extend the comment period to the
    end of January, so that the public has enough time to understand the issues
    well enough to make “substantive” comments, and so that the holidays won’t
    interfere with that. *

    *7. Other agencies not consulted:*  Neither Olympic National Park nor the
    State DNR, whose lands will be affected by the mobile emitters, were
    consulted during the drafting of the Environmental Assessment. If they were
    consulted afterward, then where is the public record of those
    consultations? This is another failure on the part of the Navy in its NEPA
    procedure.  Also, neither DNR nor the Park Service were represented at any
    of the informational meetings. Why not?  Failure to consult with other
    affected agencies is a violation of federal law.

    *Part 3*

    *Violation of National Forest Management Act and Forest Plan*

    *8. Public interest is paramount: *By signing the permit, the Forest
    Service places itself in violation of its own Forest Management Plan, and
    the National Forest Management Act. No outside agency, including the
    Department of Defense, has the right to override the Forest Service’s own
    Forest Management Plans and conduct activities that place their priorities
    over those of the public. The Forest Service’s own regulations state that
    military use of public lands is not permissible if the military has other
    “suitable and available” lands for their Proposed Action, and Forest
    Service management policy states that when considering issuing such a
    permit, “…the interests and needs of the general public shall be given
    priority over those of the applicant.”  The Navy has not adequately
    demonstrated that it has not investigated the use of private or other
    lands, and its reasons for wanting to move the entire electronic warfare
    program from Mountain Home, Idaho to the Olympic National Forest are not
    enough: fuel savings and ease of scheduling for training are insufficient
    justification to override the overwhelming socioeconomic and environmental
    interests of the public.

    *Why are the needs and desires of the public not being given priority over
    the desires of the Navy?*

    *9. Special Use Permit screening checklist*:  Among its 14 requirements,
    the Forest Service’s own checklist for considering applications says, “Use
    will not pose a serious or substantial risk to public health or safety AND
    Use will not create an exclusive or perpetual right of use or occupancy AND
    Use will not unreasonably conflict or interfere with administrative use by
    the Forest Service, other scheduled or authorized existing uses on or
    adjacent to non-National Forest System lands.”

    (36CFR 251.54; FSH 2709.11 12.2 & 12.3; FSM 2703)

    *Part 4*

    *Cumulative Impacts – Omissions in Documents*

    *10. Documents still unavailable:* Though the Forest Service’s NEPA home
    page links to the Navy’s Environmental Assessment and its decision
    documents, neither it nor the Navy web pages contain links to the 2010 EIS,
    which was removed from public access by the Navy, or the previous EIS’s
    going back to 1989 that have been cited by the Navy in meetings, or the
    Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2010 Biological Opinion, which is not posted
    anywhere, or to the temporary permit that was issued by the Forest Service
    to the Navy three years ago, or to the Memorandum of Understanding that
    declared military training to be an “appropriate use” of national forest
    lands, or to supporting documents referenced in the Navy’s Environmental
    Assessment, such as Joint Publication 3-13.1, which describes the methods
    and intent of electronic attack weapons on the Growler jets that will be
    training in the Olympic National Forest.

    This is a violation of NEPA, which says such pertinent documents shall be
    made available to the public for scrutiny.  (18CFR 380.9).  Moreover, an
    explanation of the Forest Service’s own updated NEPA handbook says, “…NEPA
    procedures regulations [sic] are intended to let interested parties become
    more effectively engaged in the decision making process rather than merely
    as reviewer of proposals and final documents. Specifically, the regulations
    include an option for responsible officials to incrementally develop,
    modify, and document proposed actions and alternatives through an open and
    transparent process.”

    *If District Ranger Dean Millett is the responsible official who has the
    power to make the public review process more open and transparent, then why
    does he not do it?*

    *11. Navy dismisses entire categories of impacts:*  On page ES-2 of the
    Environmental Assessment the Navy states, “Cumulative impacts of the
    Proposed Action, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably
    foreseeable future impacts, were analyzed. Based on the analysis, cumulative
    impacts within the EW Range Study Area would not be significant.” On page
    4-1 the Navy says, “The cumulative impacts analysis in this EA focused on
    impacts that are “truly meaningful,” in accordance with CEQ guidance
    (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). The level of analysis for each
    resource was commensurate with the intensity of the impacts.” Also, “…this
    EA dismissed from further analysis the actions and environmental
    considerations that were considered not reasonably forseeable.” *The Navy
    is not allowed to dismiss environmental considerations* it considers not
    meaningful or foreseeable during a NEPA process; this is a violation of
    NEPA, which does not allow an agency such leeway. In November 2009, a
    federal court judge ruled that a faulty impacts analysis in a NEPA process
    may subject the government to financial liability later. In early 2010, the
    Obama administration announced plans to require analysis of the proposed
    action’s relation to climate change, along with impacts on land use,
    biological diversity, and air and water quality. While analysis of
    cumulative impacts has been the subject of disagreement among agencies, *the
    Navy has provided in its EA neither peer-reviewed citations nor detailed
    analysis on any of the following topics, all of which would be in the
    public’s interest:*

    a. Socioeconomic impacts to communities from increased jet noise and air
    pollution;

    b. Impacts to wilderness values in Olympic National Park;

    c. Cultural factors, including traditional uses of land;

    d. Analysis of multiple stressors on humans, endangered species, and other
    wildlife;

    e. Analysis of chronic radiation effects on humans, wildlife and habitats,
    including aquatic; (There was no mention in the EA of the U.S. Department
    of Interior’s February 7, 2014 critique of the FCC’s outdated dismissal of
    radiation concerns, see

    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf  )

    f. Evaluation of the protection of children, environmental justice, water,
    land use, and geology;

    g. Analyses on population effects on threatened bird species, particularly
    the cumulative effects of noise and electromagnetic radiation on the
    northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, in whose critical habitat areas
    most of the Navy’s emitter sites will be located;

    h. Analysis of the effects of electromagnetic radiation and loud sounds on
    migrating shorebirds, geese, ducks, and other non-listed birds;

    Additionally, there were none of these:

    9. Cost analysis for jet fuel savings from not flying an extra 400 miles,
    versus effects on the environment.

    i. Analysis of other sites as alternatives to the Olympic MOA, including
    private lands.

    j. Analysis of the increased fire danger posed by jet and drone crashes,
    sparks from vehicle transmitters or operators’ cigarettes, or misdirected
    electromagnetic beams from either the transmitters or from jets, hitting
    tinder-dry vegetation;

    k. Analysis of the interaction and effects of climate change as a potential
    magnifier of impacts.

    *Why did the Navy not do its homework?*

    *Did the Forest Service assess each segment of the Olympic National Forest
    to be used by the Navy with an initial focus on identifying and evaluating
    the wide variety of impacts and potential risks to resources?  Were these
    risks rated as high, medium or low? Did the Forest Service assess impacts
    from jet emissions, jet and drone crashes, possible fires caused by said
    activities, along with other impacts, including but not limited to:  Loss
    of National Forest public revenue, loss of use by the public, the scope and
    number of acres needed for use by the Navy, the scope of the habit in that
    area, etc.  If there is potential damage, how will Navy restore these
    areas?  *

    *Were the above factors, if investigated by the U.S. Forest Service,
    reviewed by the Forest Botany and Wildlife Team? During their review, did
    they specifically consider the influence of electronic and electromagnetic
    affects to species such as fragmentation, disturbance, and potential loss
    of habitat quality?*

    *Part 5*

    *Fraudulent Noise Measurements*

    *12. Jet noise not accurately measured for assessing impacts:*  At a
    meeting with residents in Coupeville on the topic of jet noise, a Navy
    representative described the process of sound measurement as that of
    placing a GE engine on a test platform on the ground, turning it on and
    recording its noise. That data is fed into noise mapping software that
    considers land contour data. The processed data was then averaged with
    quiet time over the length of a year to produce a “Day-Night Average,” as
    is done at commercial airports by the FAA. No live jet takeoffs or landings
    were measured in establishing the Day-Night Average, according to the Navy
    official, nor was the frequent use of afterburners ever factored into those
    sound levels, nor was the significant extra noise from extended flaps,
    landing gear and speed brakes included.

    The Navy developed a decibel average of 65, which is under the limit for
    hearing damage but over the limit, according to the Navy’s own figures, for
    residential development. 65 decibels does not, however, account for the
    times when the decibel level *inside* some residential homes is above 100,
    which is more than enough to cause hearing loss, or the fact that at some
    homes at Admiral’s Cove the decibel level has been measured by an
    independent sound professional, at 134.2.  Growler jets are louder than the
    Prowlers they are replacing, and the Navy has promised that the minimum
    altitude they will be flying over land is 1200 feet. That has been
    frequently contradicted by hikers on mountainous forest trails, who have
    reported seeing jets fly past beneath them. According to the Navy’s own
    figures, a Growler jet flying at 1000 feet produces a “Single Event Level”
    of 113 decibels, which is enough to damage hearing and cause medical
    problems in people subjected to it. In the Roosevelt-Okanogan Military
    Training Area the Navy is authorized to fly at 300 feet above ground level.
    It is not clear what would prevent them from authorizing that lower
    altitude in the Olympic National Forest.

    A recent study called Community Aircraft Noise: A Public Health Issue
    identified serious health effects in Coupeville, WA, caused by chronic and
    acute noise episodes:
    http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/Files/Community%20Aircraft%20Noise_A%20Public%20Health%20Issue.pdf

    *With regard to jet noise and emissions,* the “Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve”
    on Whidbey Island have created a web page which includes this Links and
    Files section, full of valuable information:
    http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/LinksAndFiles.html

    *As a result of the Navy’s apparent underestimation of sound levels* caused
    by jets, the effects of loud noise on threatened and endangered species in
    the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion for the Navy, which was
    begun in 2009 and issued in 2010, may be based on inaccurate or misleading
    information from the Navy. If this is indeed the case, that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service was given inaccurate or misleading information on which to
    base its evaluation of biological impacts, then the Biological Opinion
    should be considered invalid and formal consultation re-initiated under
    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, using actual sound measurements
    from real jets. Providing deliberately misleading information to a federal
    agency is also considered a form of fraud or false statement under US Code,
    Chapter 47. There may be other applicable laws that were violated.

    *What is the real level of sound produced by Navy jets, and why was this
    information not incorporated into impact studies, and shouldn’t the Navy be
    required to change its measurement system to the full spectrum of noise
    generated by actual aircraft?*

    *Part 6*

    *No Verification of Navy’s Claim of No Significant Impacts*

    *13. The Forest Service conducted no independent research:* At the Port
    Angeles meeting, District Ranger Dean Millett acknowledged and is recorded
    on videotape saying that *the Forest Service did not conduct any
    independent investigation to verify the Navy’s claims of no significant
    impacts*. This violates the Forest Service’s own policies as well as the
    law. For example, the Environmental Assessment dismisses potential impacts
    on everything that does not fall into its category of “observable
    wildlife.” It inaccurately states that amphibians and reptiles only exist
    around marshes and meadows. On page 3.2-6 it says, “The proposed activities
    do not occur on marshes or in meadows; therefore, it is highly unlikely
    that amphibians or reptiles would occur in the project area.”

    A similar statement dismisses the possibility of amphibians or reptiles
    occurring on “disturbed areas” such as roadside pull-outs where mobile
    transmitters would operate.  The Forest Service is presumably aware that
    the Olympic National Forest is designated a temperate rainforest, which
    means it is damp and wet during much of the year, and is prime habitat for
    amphibians such as frogs, newts, and salamanders throughout, which can be
    quite far from “marshes and meadows.” Furthermore, both amphibians and
    reptiles (e.g., snakes and lizards) often frequent cleared or “disturbed”
    areas. Dismissing amphibians and reptiles from consideration is misleading
    and unlawful, because amphibians are especially sensitive to
    electromagnetic radiation, particularly in their larval stages. Along with
    omissions of important analyses and data previously discussed, such blatant
    misstatements of fact *preclude informed public comment*, raise serious
    questions about the integrity of the preparers, and renders the entire
    Environmental Assessment and the permit that is intended to be based on it,
    suspect. *The US Forest Service has a duty to conduct its own independent
    scientific review* of the impacts of activities that it allows or condones.
    An agency cannot simply adopt the conclusions of another agency.

    *If the Forest Service questions the Navy’s data, then why has it not done
    its own independent investigations?  And if it does not question the Navy’s
    data, why not?*

    *14. The Courts have spoken:*  The above comments amply demonstrate the
    need for the Forest Service to conduct its own scientific review.  In Save
    Our Ecosystems V. P Clark E Merrell, http://openjurist.org/747/f2d/1240 the
    Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The Forest Service must do research
    if no adequate data exists.” In Foundation for North American Wild Sheep V.
    US Department of Agriculture, the Ninth Circuit Court said, “the very
    purpose of NEPA’s requirement that an EIS be prepared for all actions that
    may significantly affect the environment is to obviate the need for such
    speculation by insuring that available data is gathered and analyzed prior
    to the implementation of the proposed action.” 681 F.2d at 1179. In Warm
    Springs Dam Task Force V. Gribble, the Court held that an agency cured the
    defect in its EIS by commissioning a study about the effects of a newly
    discovered fault system on that dam. 621 F.2d at 1025-26.

    *15. Other courts have imposed similar requirements on agencies*. See,
    e.g., Rankin v. Coleman, 394 F.Supp. 647, 658 (highway project enjoined for
    inadequate EIS on effects and alternatives; alternatives must be
    “affirmatively studied”), mod. 401 F.Supp. 664 (E.D.N.C.1975); Montgomery
    v. Ellis, 364 F.Supp. 517, 528 (N.D.Ala.1973) (“NEPA requires each agency
    to undertake research needed adequately to expose environmental harms and,
    hence, to appraise available alternatives”) (project enjoined pending
    preparation of an adequate EIS); Brooks v. Volpe, 350 F.Supp. 269, 279
    (“NEPA requires each agency to indicate the research needed to adequately
    expose environmental harms”), supplemented, 350 F.Supp. 287
    (W.D.Wash.1972), aff’d, *487 F.2d 1344*
    <http://openjurist.org/487/f2d/1344> (9th
    Cir.1973); Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 325 F.Supp. 1401, 1403
    (D.D.C.1971) (interpreting section 102(2)(A) as making “the completion of
    an adequate research program a prerequisite to agency action …. The Act
    envisions that program formulation will be directed by research results
    rather than that research programs will be designed to substantiate
    programs already decided upon”) If the information relevant to adverse
    impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and is not
    known, and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the
    agency *shall
    *include the information in the environmental impact statement.

    *Part 7*

    *Some Unaddressed Public Concerns*

    *16. Chronic radiation effects not addressed:* In Section 2.1.1.4, the
    claim that the noise and RF radiation from mobile emitters will not impact
    what the Environmental Assessment calls Biological Resources is entirely
    based on the premise that the mobile emitters are moving around the forest,
    so exposure at any one site is limited. This despite the fact that 3 mobile
    units will be in operation from 8 – 16 hours per day, 260 days per year,
    among 15 different sites on the Olympic Peninsula. According to the EA,
    each mobile emitter site will average 11.15 training events per day, which
    also includes electronic detection and attack weapons from jets. This works
    out to an average of 468 hours of electromagnetic radiation per site per
    year, or 195, 24-hour days per decade. The Department of the Interior has
    criticized the FCC’s standards for cellphone radiation to be outmoded and
    no longer applicable as they do not adequately protect wildlife:
    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf

    *Where is the peer-reviewed research to back up the Navy’s claim of no
    significant impacts?*

    *17. Potential loss of human lives:*  Page 2-7 of the environmental
    assessment says the following: “The activities of the Proposed Action
    center on two divisions of EW, known as electronic warfare support (ES) and
    electronic attack (EA).” Then it goes on to provide this short explanation:
    “Sailors aboard Navy ships, submarines, and aircraft conduct ES and EA
    training as they search for, intercept, identify, and locate or localize
    sources of intentional and unintentional radiated electromagnetic energy
    for the purpose of immediate threat recognition, targeting, planning, and
    conduct of future operations. “(EA 2-7)  This sounds pretty benign.

    The environmental assessment references Joint Publication 3-13.1,
    Electronic Warfare, 08 February 2012 as a source document, and if you look
    at this publication the short explanation above is, verbatim, the
    definition of electronic support but  the environmental assessment leaves
    out any explanation of electronic attack (EA). Joint Publication 3-13.1
    defines Electronic Attack as follow: “EA refers to the division of EW
    involving the use of EM energy, DE (directed energy), or antiradiation
    weapons to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with the intent of
    degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat capability…”

    Directed energy is defined as:  “An umbrella term covering technologies
    that relate to the production of a beam of concentrated electromagnetic
    energy or atomic or subatomic particles. ” (GL6) “Examples include lasers,
    electro-optical (EO), infrared (IR), and radio frequency (RF) weapons such
    as high-power microwave (HPM) or those employing an EMP.  (I-4)  Now it’s
    getting serious. Additionally, Joint Publication 3-13-1 also speaks to
    unintended consequences of EW:  “Unintended Consequences. EW planners must
    coordinate EW efforts … to minimize unintended consequences, collateral
    damage, and collateral effects. Friendly EA could potentially deny
    essential services to a local population that, in turn, could result in
    loss of life and/or political ramifications.”  (III-5)

    The Environmental Assessment, which only deals with the ground operations
    (the emitters), is addressing just a part of the impact and is totally
    silent on what may be the bigger concern, which is impact caused by the
    aircraft, ships and submarines engaging in EW training, and particularly
    electronic attack training.

    *What types of electronic attack will be practiced, and what are the
    potential impacts, intended or otherwise, on the local population and the
    environment?*

    *How can a Special Use Permit include the use of Electronic Attack weapons
    if they weren’t even discussed in the Environmental Assessment? *

    *Part 8*

    *Conclusion*

    The U.S. Navy is demonstrably unable to perceive or assess impacts in our
    forests, and is evidently unwilling to assess or disclose impacts to
    humans, wildlife and habitats from a variety of sources that concern the
    public. Because none of these direct, indirect and cumulative impacts have
    been analyzed, and because there have been so many violations of NEPA
    procedure, and because case law has shown again and again that one agency
    cannot rely exclusively on the data from another agency, this Special Use
    Permit should not be issued. For the above reasons, the Navy’s self-serving
    Environmental Assessment should be withdrawn and an honest, independent
    assessment of impacts should be made by the Forest Service, in a valid
    Environmental Impact Statement that places no applicant’s priority above
    the interests of the public, and that allows the public to have a say in
    the management of its public lands.

    It is ironic in the extreme that the Navy forces other agencies to consider
    vast amounts of area when evaluating impacts, such as to endangered species
    in the entire northwestern region of Washington, or on a training range
    that stretches from California to Alaska, yet it forces public commenters
    to restrict themselves to one item on their menu of impacts when foisting a
    program of such potentially immense consequence upon the public.

    As of December 2014, the Navy will also be expanding its sonar and
    explosive activity (http://tinyurl.com/PDN-Sonobuoy2) into waters off
    Indian Island near Port Townsend, in the Strait of Juan De Fuca, and in the
    2,408 square mile Olympic Coast Marine Sanctuary, where the Navy says it is
    exempt from prohibitions. It has, however, said that bombing exercises will
    take place outside the Sanctuary. At the same time, the Navy is developing
    plans for two Carrier Strike Groups to train in the Gulf of Alaska just
    south of Prince William Sound and east of Kodiak Island, using new
    extremely loud weapons systems and sinking two ships per year, in exercises
    that the Navy admits will kill or injure 182,000 whales, dolphins,
    porpoises, sea lions, seals, sea otters and other marine mammals in one
    five-year period. This is less than the original prediction of 425,000
    marine mammals, but still so astonishing it makes one wonder what parts of
    our biologically rich coasts will not become war zones with high casualty
    counts, if the Navy gets its way.

    s/  Karen Sullivan, November 14, 2014